Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Sumitra Bai vs Chandraprakash @ Fadal Banjare on 13 March, 2026
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2026:CGHC:12006-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ACQA No. 67 of 2017
1 - Smt. Sumitra Bai Wd/o Late Kunjram, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o Village Jaropali, Police Station Sarsiva, District- Balodabazar-
Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh
--- Appellant
versus
1 - Chandraprakash @ Fadal Banjare, son of Dharmu Banjare,
Aged About 40 Years, R/o Jorapali, Police Station Sarsiva,
District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Pili Bai W/o Chandra Prakash Banjare Aged About 38 Years
R/o Village Jorapali, Police Station Sarsiva, District Baloda-
Bazar, Bhataapara, Chhattisgarh.
3 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station Sarsiva,
District Balodabazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondents
And
ACQA No. 71 of 2017
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. - Sarsiwa, District Baloda-
Bazar-Bhatapara (C.G.)
---Appellant
Versus
2
1 - Chandra Prakash @ Fadal Banjare, S/o Dharmu Banjare,
Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Jorapali, Police Station Sarsiva,
District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh
2 - Peelibai, W/o Chandra Prakash Banjare, Aged About 38 Years,
R/o Village Jorapali, Police Station Sarsiva, District Balodabazar
Bhatapara Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent(s)
For Appellants : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate in ACQA
No.67/2017 and Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu,
Dy. Govt. Advocate in ACQA No.71/2017
For Res. No.1 & : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate.
2/accused in both the
appeals.
For Respondent : Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Dy. Govt.
No.3/State in ACQ Advocate.
No.67/2017
D.B. : Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
(Judgment on Board)
(13.03.2026)
Per Rajani Dubey, J
1. Since the aforesaid acquittal appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment of acquittal, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The ACQA No. 67/2017 has been preferred by the victim/appellant herein and ACQA No.71/2017 has been preferred by State/appellant here against the judgment dated 07.10.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.09/2015 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, 3 District Balodabazar (C.G.), whereby the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein of the charges punishable under Sections 302, 294, 506(Part- II), and 326 of IPC.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Kunjram Banjare (since deceased) lodged a report on 16.12.2014 at about 11:10 A.M., to the effect that he worked as an agricultural labourer. On 14.12.2014, after having his meal, he was standing in the lane in front of his house at about 8:00 P.M. At that time, his neighbour Chandra Prakash (accused/respondent No.1) came there holding an iron axe (tangiya) in his hand, and his wife Peelabai (accused/respondent No.2) came carrying an iron rod (sariya). Both of them started abusing him in filthy language referring to his mother and sister and, on account of previous enmity, threatened to kill him. Thereafter, Chandra Prakash assaulted him with the iron axe and Peelabai struck him with the iron rod on the left side of his head and near his left eye, causing injuries from which blood started oozing out. Due to the assault, he fell down on the ground while raising alarm. Hearing his cries, his wife Sumitra Bai came there, upon which accused/respondents Chandra Prakash and Peelabai fled from the spot. Thereafter, his family 4 members took him to Narayana Hospital, Raipur for treatment. However, due to shortage of money for treatment, they brought him back home at about 3:00 A.M. on 15.12.2014 and succumbed to the injuries in police station. On the basis of the aforesai under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326, 506-B and 302 d report, the concerned police station registered a case against the accused persons under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326, 506-B and 302 of the IPC.
4. After completing the usual investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326, 302, 34 IPC before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatgaon followed by charges under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 326, 302/34 of IPC by the learned Trial Court.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the accused/respondents were also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused/respondents pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime. In defence, one witness namely Dr. (Ku.) Sunanda Dhenge (DW-1) was examined by the accused.
6. The learned Trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on 5 record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 of the charges under Sections 302, 294, 506(Part-II), and 326 of IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal by the complainant/appellant and the State.
7. Mr. Shikhar Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant/appellant in ACQA No.67/2017 submits that the judgment, findings and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court are illegal, improper and contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and, therefore, the same deserve to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution. According to the learned counsel, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record, the accused persons ought to have been convicted for the offences for which charges were framed against them. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution has clearly established that the accused/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, in furtherance of their common intention to commit the murder of deceased Kunjram Banjare, assaulted him with a Tangia and an iron rod. Due to the said assault, the deceased sustained grievous injuries which ultimately resulted in his 6 death. It is contended that this fact was specifically stated by the complainant/appellant before the trial Court during the examination-in-chief. It is also argued that the testimony of the complainant/appellant given in the examination-in-chief has not been effectively rebutted by the accused/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 in their cross-examination. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution witnesses have clearly deposed against the respondents and their statements establish the commission of the offences for which the charges were framed. However, the defence failed to discredit or rebut the material portions of their testimonies.
8. Learned counsel also submits that the acquittal of the accused/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 for the offences charged is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the evidence on record. It is contended that the learned trial Court ought to have convicted the accused/respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326, 506-B and 302 of the IPC. It is also submitted that the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation were not properly contradicted during cross-examination by the accused/respondents, and therefore the same lend support to the prosecution case. 7 Learned counsel further argues that during the investigation, the police seized a blood-stained Tangia and a wooden stick pursuant to the memorandum of the accused persons. The seizure witnesses have supported the prosecution case regarding such recovery. However, the learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate this material evidence. Lastly, it is submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses are consistent with and corroborate the facts mentioned in the FIR. All the witnesses have supported the prosecution story, but despite the same, the learned trial Court erroneously acquitted the accused persons. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal be set aside and the accused/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 be convicted.
In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Goverdhan and another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2025) 3 SCC 378.
9. Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State/appellant in ACQA No.71/2017 submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Court is illegal, improper and contrary to the evidence available on record. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to 8 appreciate that the injuries sustained by the deceased were fatal in nature. The injuries were duly proved by the doctor (PW-3), who clearly stated that the death of the deceased was homicidal. Learned State counsel further submits that the wife of the deceased (PW-10) is an eye-witness to the occurrence. She has categorically deposed that upon hearing abusive and filthy language uttered by the accused, she came out of her house and saw that accused Peelibai assaulted the deceased with an axe, while accused Chandra Prakash was beating the deceased with a cudgel. It is further contended that the learned Trial Court has wrongly held that there was delay in lodging the FIR, whereas the prosecution has duly explained the cause of such delay. Therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court in this regard is erroneous and unsustainable in law.
10. Learned State counsel also submits that the prosecution has duly proved the memorandum statements and the seizure made pursuant thereto, which form an important link in the chain of circumstances establishing the guilt of the accused persons. It is further argued that the learned Trial Court failed to consider that the deceased died after lodging the FIR and, therefore, his statement ought to have been treated as a dying declaration. In his complaint, the 9 deceased clearly stated that the accused persons had assaulted him, and the said statement is duly corroborated by other circumstantial evidence available on record. Learned State counsel further submits that the learned Trial Court wrongly disbelieved the statements of the eye- witnesses and erroneously concluded that there was no eye-witness to the incident. The impugned judgment, therefore, suffers from serious infirmities. It is also contended that the learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment on the basis of conjectures and surmises and has travelled beyond the evidence available on record. The Court further failed to consider that immediately after the incident, the complainant party approached the police station to lodge the FIR, but on the advice of the police they first took the injured to the hospital for treatment in order to save his life. This aspect has been completely ignored by the trial Court. Learned State counsel also submits that the trial Court erred in observing that due to previous enmity between the families of the deceased and the accused, the accused might have been falsely implicated, as such a finding is based merely on conjectures and surmises. It is further submitted that the accused persons failed to offer any explanation regarding the seizure 10 of the weapons used in the offence and how those articles came into their possession. This material circumstance has also been ignored by the learned trial Court.
11. According to the learned State counsel, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there is sufficient evidence on record establishing the guilt of the accused persons. The learned trial Court ought to have relied upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and should have convicted the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 323, 324, 326, 506-B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. So, the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court be set aside.
12. On the other hand, Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for accused/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in both the appeals supporting the impugned judgment of acquittal submits that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence available on record and has passed a well- reasoned judgment. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from material contradictions and omissions, and the learned trial Court has rightly found the testimony of the alleged eye- 11 witnesses to be unreliable. Learned counsel further submits that the prosecution story is doubtful due to delay in lodging the FIR and the existence of previous enmity between the parties, which creates a strong possibility of false implication of the accused persons. It is therefore contended that the learned trial Court has committed no illegality or perversity in acquitting the accused persons and the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court.
In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and another Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2024) AIR(SC) 1678 : (2024) AIR (SC) Cri 548 : (2025) 2 CriCC 264 and Mallappa and Others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) AIR (SC) 1252 : (2024) AIR(SC) Cri 440.
13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
14. It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 294, 506 (Part-II), 326, 302/34 of IPC against the accused/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 & after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted them of the charges under Sections 302, 294, 12 506(Part-II), and 326 of IPC on this ground that the prosecution witnesses were not reliable and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
15. Sumitra (PW-10), wife of deceased has stated that on the date of incident at around 8.00 PM, when her deceased husband came out of the house after having dinner and went towards lane, the accused persons started hurling abuses to him. After hearing the abuses, she came out of the house and saw that accused Pili Bai was assaulting her deceased husband by axe (tangia) on his head and accused Chandra Prakash by club on his abdomen. She has also stated that as she was not having courage to intervene, she rant to call the members of her family from the house. By the time they arrive, the accused persons had assaulted her husband and fled from the spot. She has also stated that after that, they went to Sarsiwa Police Station to lodge a report. Her husband was taken along to the police station, where police officials told them to take her deceased husband for immediate medical treatment. Thereafter, they took him to the Govt. Hospital at Sarsiwa, where her deceased husband was referred to Raipur. In cross- examination, this witness has admitted that on a report of accused/respondents' daughter, a rape case was pending 13 against her nephew Vikesh. She has also admitted the suggestion that a case of maarpeet was also pending against her deceased husband Kunjram at Bilaigarh, Bhatgaon. In para 13 of cross-examination, this witness has stated that after occurrence of incident, they went to police station Sarsiwa and lodged a report and police had recorded her statement. This witness had denied this suggestion that the report of the incident was lodged after 03 days of the incident.
16. Dhanau Ram (PW-1) and Bodhmati (PW-2) are the villagers. They have not supported the case of the prosecution and prosecution declared them hostile & cross- examined them but they denied all suggestions of the prosecution.
17. Vikesh (PW-5), Chhatram (PW-6), Neera Bai (PW-7), Damru Lal (PW-8), Ram Ratan (PW-9), relatives of deceased Kunjram, have supported the statement of Sumitra (PW-10), wife of deceased. All the witnesses have stated that on the date of incident, both the accused persons assaulted the deceased by tangia (axe) and rod. After that, the deceased was taken to Sarsiwa Hospital from where he was taken to Raipur, however, due to paucity of fund, his treatment could not be done and they brought the 14 deceased back to home and after two days of incident, a report was lodged at police station and after lodging the report, deceased Kunjram died.
18. Vikesh (PW-5), in para 5 of his cross-examination, has admitted this suggestion that on a report of daughter of accused/respondents, a rape case was registered against him. He has also admitted in para 8 that a case of maarpeet was pending against him and his deceased uncle Kunjram. This witness has denied this suggestion that his deceased uncle Kunjram was not in a position to lodge a report and some other person signed the report pretending to be his deceased uncle Kunjram. This witness, in para 18 of his cross-examination, has specifically admitted that his deceased uncle passed away at 11.00 A.M, and the merg intimation (Ex.P-3) was given after his death. As per the merg intimation (Ex.P-3), the date and time of death of deceased is 16.12.2014 at 11.30 AM and the time of lodging the merg intimation (Ex.P-3) is 11.40 AM. Further, as per FIR (Ex.P-16), the date of FIR is 16.12.2014 at 11.10 AM and the date of incident is 14.12.2014 at 8.00 PM.
19. Dr. Narayan Sahu (PW-3) is the autopsy surgeon who conducted autopsy of the deceased and gave his report under Ex.P-1 noticing five injuries, out of which, injury No.1 15 was lacerated (stitched wound) on left fronto-parietal region in the size of 8 x 2 cm. The autopsy surgeon opined the cause of death of deceased to be cardio respiratory arrest due to internal haemorrhage and peritonitis. In cross- examination, the doctor has admitted that there was no injury mark on the deceased caused by any sharp edged weapon. The doctor has admitted that membrane covering the liver and kidneys had no injuries. There were no injury marks on the liver and kidneys.
20. G.K. Singh (PW-12) is the Assistant Sub Inspector. He recorded the FIR (Ex.P-16) and admitted his signature on 'A to A' part. This witness has also recorded merg intimation (Ex.P-3) on the information of Vikesh (PW-5). In cross- examination, this witness has admitted that he does not know that how many times did complainant come for lodging a report. He denied this suggestion that deceased Kunjram had not come to police station for lodging a report. In para 16, a question was put to this witness that on what time did he register the report and this witness answered to this question that he recorded the report at 11.10 AM, deceased died at 11.30 AM and merg was recorded at 11.40 AM. This witness has admitted in para 19 that at the time of recording a report, he was not having any medical report. 16
21. Upon close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, it appears that as per the FIR and other documents the incident occurred on 14.12.2014 at about 8:00 PM, whereas the FIR (Ex.P-16) came to be lodged only on 16.12.2014 at 11:10 AM, i.e., after a delay of about two days. Though the prosecution has attempted to explain the delay by stating that 'bZykt okLrs jk;iqj tkus ls', but no documentary evidence such as medical papers, treatment records or MLC from either Sarsiwa Hospital or Narayana Hospital, Raipur for the intervening period from 14.12.2014 to 16.12.2014 has been produced by the prosecution to substantiate this explanation. Further, no treating doctor from the said hospitals has been examined. The merg intimation (Ex.P-3) was lodged on 16.12.2014 at 11:40 AM, shortly after the death of the deceased, whereas the FIR was recorded only twenty minutes prior to the death of the deceased. In the absence of any supporting medical document to show that the deceased was under continuous treatment during the intervening period, the explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR remains unsubstantiated and creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution version.
22. In addition to the above infirmities, the defence examined Dr. Ku. Sunanda Dhenge (DW-1), a handwriting expert, who 17 after examining the signatures of the deceased Kunjram and the signature appearing on the FIR submitted her report (Ex.D-4) opining that the signature on the FIR does not tally with the signatures of the deceased on other documents relating to Criminal Case No. J-29/2014. Furthermore, the FSL report does not indicate the presence of human blood on the seized weapons allegedly used in the offence. Significantly, the prosecution has also failed to produce any medical document or MLC prepared immediately after the incident to establish the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased on 14.12.2014, nor has the medical history from Narayana Hospital, Raipur been brought on record. In such circumstances, the prosecution evidence suffers from material omissions and inconsistencies which create serious doubt regarding the manner of occurrence and the involvement of the accused persons. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt that on 14.12.2014 both the accused persons assaulted deceased Kunjram due to which he died on 16.12.2014.
23. Upon a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has meticulously evaluated the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, the defence evidence, and the documentary 18 material available on record. The Trial Court has rightly taken note of the material contradictions in the prosecution case, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of medical documents relating to treatment of the deceased immediately after the alleged incident, the hostile nature of independent witnesses, the negative FSL report, and the expert opinion regarding discrepancy in the signature of the deceased on the FIR. In view of these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
24. Hon'ble Apex Court in Ballu (supra) held in para 19, 20 and 21 as under :-
"19. At the cost of repetition, we are compelled to say that the findings of the High Court are totally based on conjectures and surmises. Though the High Court has referred to the law laid down by this Court with regard to the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court has totally misapplied the same and a very well-reasoned judgment based upon the correct appreciation of evidence by the trial Court has been reversed by the High Court, only on the basis of conjectures and surmises.
20. The High Court could have interfered in the criminal appeal only if it came to the conclusion that the findings of the trial Judge were either 19 perverse or impossible. As already discussed hereinbefore, no perversity or impossibility could be found in the approach adopted by the learned trial Judge.
21. In any case, even if two views are possible and the trial Judge found the other view to be more probable, an interference would not have been warranted by the High Court, unless the view taken by the learned trial Judge was a perverse or impossible view."
25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its recent judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in the matter of Mallappa and Ors. Versus State of Karnataka, has held in para 36 as under:-
36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-
"(I) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive--inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;20
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."
26. Thus from the discussion aforesaid and judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ballu (supra) Mallappa (supra) & the view taken by the learned Appellate Court in acquitting the accused/respondents of the charge under Sections 302, 294, 506(Part-II) and 326 of IPC, this Court finds no illegality in the order impugned acquitting the respondent particularly when there is a settled legal position that if on the basis of record two conclusions can be arrived at, the one favouring the accused has to be preferred. Even otherwise, the prosecution thus has utterly failed in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has been fully justified in recording the finding of acquittal which is based on proper appreciation of evidence available on record. Furthermore, in case of appeal against the acquittal the scope is very limited and interference can only be made if finding 21 recorded by the trial Court is highly perverse or arrived at by ignoring the relevant material and considering the irrelevant ones. In the present case, no such circumstance is there warranting interference by this Court.
27. Accordingly, both the acquittal appeals are bereft of any substance and, therefore, the same are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
JUDGE JUDGE
pekde
Digitally signed
by VIJAY
BHARATRAO
PEKDE
Date: 2026.03.17
16:54:29 +0530